There’s something bugging me
about Final Destination 2. The opening sequence is so good that I was excited at the prospect of a
sequel that could potentially live up to the original. The original film was, for lack of a less quote-whorish phraseology, an
adrenaline rush. The opening scene
of the sequel has that same quality to it, but, oh, does the movie go downhill
quickly from there. The original
worked so well for a few reasons: the death scenes were inventive and
surprising, the moments of terror were genuine, the suspense was real, and the
characters had personalities and discussed a subject with which every horror
movie character is confronted—albeit usually too quickly for them to give it a
second thought. And then there was
one more thing, something that lent the proceedings an unexpected charm: Death
had a really twisted sense of humor. Walking
out of the original, I thought, Hitchcock would have loved that. Walking out of this one, I
thought, what happened? How a sequel
can change things.

A year to the day after the
tragic airplane explosion that initiated the events of the first film (you just
know something bad is going to go down then), Kimberly Corman (A.J. Cook) and
her friends are heading off on spring break. On the way, a horrible, catastrophic traffic pileup occurs, killing her
and her friends along with many, many other people. No, it was just a vision, but she blocks traffic heading off onto the
freeway anyway. The disaster takes
place exactly how she had envisioned it, but she and a group of strangers are
spared a terrifying death thanks to her actions (her friends, on the other
hand…). Kimberly is convinced that
things will play out eerily similarly to the events that transpired a year. Naturally, no one completely believes
her. So, what does it take for people to understand the levity of the
situation at hand? Why someone from
the group dying in an elaborate, ironic way, of course. Nevertheless, Kimberly can’t come to an understanding of Death’s plan
on her own, so she visits and enlists the aid of the only remaining survivor of
the incidents of a year ago, Clear Rivers (Ali Larter).

Is it worth mentioning that the
variation on the original’s gimmick stretches the willing suspension of
disbelief? You see, Kimberly’s
misunderstanding comes from the fact that the first person to die after avoiding
the accident is the last person to die in her vision. As far as she knows, Death reclaims victims in the order they were meant
to depart. Clear offers an obvious
observation: Death’s list has been reversed. Eventually the movie goes into detail why this is happening, but it’s
too convoluted to take to heart. Now
this twist wouldn’t be such a metaphysical annoyance if not for the fact that
Death seems to be lazy this time around. Instead
of a series of complicated, interlocking events that lead up to a victim’s
demise, as witnessed in the first movie, Death cuts corners this time around. Usually, it’s the characters’ own actions that set in motion the
deaths here. From a guy's hand
getting stuck in a garbage disposal because he dropped his new, expensive ring
down the drain to a kid running up to a group of pigeons to scare them (if you
heard someone yelling, “The pigeons!The
pigeons!” with such urgency, would your first reaction (even at fifteen) be to
run toward them?) to a woman’s cigarette igniting a gas leak that causes an
explosion that sends a barbed wire fence flying, Death pretty much takes a
holiday.

If the setup is forced and
idle, the execution is slightly worse for the wear. The first film garnered suspense from the possibility that anything could
happen and that Death was an unrelenting force. This one focuses on the payoffs.
The
gore has been kicked up twenty or so notches, apparently eliminating the need
for invention on the part of the filmmakers. There is little suspense as the cycle continues because we know what’s
coming in general and, at times, specific terms. Near the end when the movie has a handful of victims left, Death does
away with any pizzazz and just keeps the fatalities coming left and right. Then there’s one key misstep: the first movie worked because of
Death’s humor; this one falters because it’s the filmmakers who are flippant
about the subject. There are other things. There’s no gloom or shadow
to be found; the movie is too bright, lessening any sense of dread. Everything about the system has been established by the first film (whose
story is reiterated a few times too many), and as a result, there’s no
discovery or exploration for these characters, none of whom have a
distinguishing or worthwhile personality.

Despite its rather gaping
flaws, Final Destination 2 does manage
to elicit a few thrills now and then. The
premise holds promise until it’s butchered halfway through, leaving absolutely
no room for a sequel (take note producers—we’re on to
you). And, to a much lesser extent, there’s something enjoyable about a movie
that doesn’t recognize the irony of a character who is obsessively afraid of
all potentially sharp or deadly objects but doesn’t think twice about
paper-cuts from newspaper clippings.